Kate lentää laskukierroksen Cirrus SR20:llä Palo Altossa
Tämä video on kuvattu lokakuussa 2007 Palo Altossa. Tämä oli Katen ensimmäinen lento Cirrus SR20:llä:
Linkki youtubeen
Huomaa: Youtube-videon laatu ei ole yhtä hyvä kuin Vimeo-videossa.
Planet Karoliina – Karoliina Salminen's Weblogs
Karoliina's blogs all-in-1
Archive for August, 2008
Kate lentää laskukierroksen Cirrus SR20:llä Palo Altossa
Tämä video on kuvattu lokakuussa 2007 Palo Altossa. Tämä oli Katen ensimmäinen lento Cirrus SR20:llä:
Linkki youtubeen
Huomaa: Youtube-videon laatu ei ole yhtä hyvä kuin Vimeo-videossa.
NACA 66-020, 66-025, 66-030 body drag coefficient
Some numbers from Javafoil using the Drela approximation method (Xfoil after 1991):
NACA 66-020
Parameters: Length 6 meters, diameter from thickest point 1.2 meters:
α Re Cl Cd Cm 0.25 TU TL SU SL L/D A.C.
[°] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
0.0 11.60E6 0.000 0.00709 -0.000 0.623 0.623 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.380
So estimated Cd for the fuselage is 0.00709. Doors, antennas, landing gear door, etc. will make it worse.
Bugs and dirt on the fuselage surface and the results becomes:
NACA 66-020
α Re Cl Cd Cm 0.25 TU TL SU SL L/D A.C.
[°] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
0.0 11.60E6 0.000 0.01212 -0.000 0.625 0.625 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.380
NACA 66-030 (engine nacelle variant of the laminar body)
m/S = 1
α Re Cl Cd Cm 0.25 TU TL SU SL L/D A.C.
[°] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
0.0 11.60E6 0.000 0.00775 -0.000 0.605 0.603 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.456
Cd = 0.00775
With NACA 66-025 the fuselage pod length drops to 4.8 meters.
NACA 66-025
m/S = 1
α Re Cl Cd Cm 0.25 TU TL SU SL L/D A.C.
[°] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
0.0 9.28E6 0.000 0.00812 -0.000 0.612 0.612 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.417
Cd = 0.00818
Conclusion: All of these pods provide (according to simulation), a low drag coefficient.
Equivalent drag area for NACA 66-025 assuming body diameter of 1.2 meters:
0.00818*(0.6m*0.6m*3.14159) = 0.00925 m^2 (=0.0823 sq ft)
Hmm. did I calculate correctly? Somehow looks quite small.
NACA 66-020, 66-025, 66-030 body drag coefficient
Some numbers from Javafoil using the Drela approximation method (Xfoil after 1991):
NACA 66-020
Parameters: Length 6 meters, diameter from thickest point 1.2 meters:
α Re Cl Cd Cm 0.25 TU TL SU SL L/D A.C.
[°] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
0.0 11.60E6 0.000 0.00709 -0.000 0.623 0.623 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.380
So estimated Cd for the fuselage is 0.00709. Doors, antennas, landing gear door, etc. will make it worse.
Bugs and dirt on the fuselage surface and the results becomes:
NACA 66-020
α Re Cl Cd Cm 0.25 TU TL SU SL L/D A.C.
[°] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
0.0 11.60E6 0.000 0.01212 -0.000 0.625 0.625 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.380
NACA 66-030 (engine nacelle variant of the laminar body)
m/S = 1
α Re Cl Cd Cm 0.25 TU TL SU SL L/D A.C.
[°] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
0.0 11.60E6 0.000 0.00775 -0.000 0.605 0.603 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.456
Cd = 0.00775
With NACA 66-025 the fuselage pod length drops to 4.8 meters.
NACA 66-025
m/S = 1
α Re Cl Cd Cm 0.25 TU TL SU SL L/D A.C.
[°] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [-]
0.0 9.28E6 0.000 0.00812 -0.000 0.612 0.612 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.417
Cd = 0.00818
Conclusion: All of these pods provide (according to simulation), a low drag coefficient.
Equivalent drag area for NACA 66-025 assuming body diameter of 1.2 meters:
0.00818*(0.6m*0.6m*3.14159) = 0.00925 m^2 (=0.0823 sq ft)
Hmm. did I calculate correctly? Somehow looks quite small.
Hello
This blog contains all my blogs in one.
Why I created this blog? Because I got treated badly in the Blogger service. My aircraft review blog was considered to be contain spam and obviously it was a false positive. I requested review to the blog, but no review has been so far done and my aircraft review blog remains locked. I am really unhappy to the very bad service of Google and hereby created this new blog, which also works as a backup to my postings, so Google don’t get them destroyed.
This is the message I got from the Blogger:
Hello,
Your blog at: http://lentokone.blogspot.com/ has been identified as a potential spam blog. To correct this, please request a review by filling out the form at ….
Your blog will be deleted within 20 days if it isn’t reviewed, and you’ll be unable to publish posts during this time. After we receive your request, we’ll review your blog and unlock it within two business days. If this blog doesn’t belong to you, you don’t have to do anything, and any other blogs you may have won’t be affected.
We find spam by using an automated classifier. Automatic spam detection is inherently fuzzy, and occasionally a blog like yours is flagged incorrectly. We sincerely apologize for this error. By using this kind of system, however, we can dedicate more storage, bandwidth, and engineering resources to bloggers like you instead of to spammers. For more information, please see Blogger Help: http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=42577
Thank you for your understanding and for your help with our spam-fighting efforts.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Bad Google, bad!
>Evolved aircraft concept requirements
>I have a bit evolved set of requirements for an aircraft concept to present. They are now as follows:
– safe
* 2 engines
* 2 fuel systems
* 2 propellers
* non-stallable
* non-spinnable
* double avionics
* two batteries
* two electrical systems
* moderate stall speed (<=55 kts)
* good brakes
* good tires and landing gear that does not break from few bounces
– economical
* very low fuel consumption
* must run on autogas or diesel oil
– at least 2 places with side by side seating, in comfort (enough space in cockpit, a lot more than in a Cessna)
– very long endurance
– capable to high altitude flight
– best glide ratio speed as high as feasible (enabling cruising at L/D max).
– very high best L/D ratio (>=1:25)
– low minimum sink rate
– relatively low power required to keep in level flight
– low drag utilizing extensive laminar flow in the fuselage and wings
– lightning strike protection (copper mesh installed to the whole aircraft)
– utility category (+4.4/-2.2G)
– positively stable in all flight conditions (suitable for IFR flight)
– speed brakes / spoilers
– ballistic recovery chute
– strong roll cage around the cockpit, exceeding the current FAR23 requirement at least with factor of two
– keeping aircraft CG on correct place do not require using ballast (no matter if there are two or one person sitting on front seats)
– aircraft can be parked without anyone sitting on it on its normal upright position
– aircraft shall look stylish and out-of-this-worldish
– surface finish has to be smooth
– large enough control panel for fitting IFR instruments (Large EFIS screen + analog backup instruments)
– good visibility outside
– rudder trim
– aileron trim
– elevator trim
– using aircraft systems has to be simple and all procedures has to be very simple and easy to memorize (aircraft shall not be a checklist-machine)
Summary: Different-looking composite aircraft that incorporates extensive laminar flow, does not stall or spin and that you can fly from Europe to Oskosh and back with ease and with peace of mind. Complies or exceeds with FAR23.
Evolved aircraft concept requirements
I have a bit evolved set of requirements for an aircraft concept to present. They are now as follows:
– safe
* 2 engines
* 2 fuel systems
* 2 propellers
* non-stallable
* non-spinnable
* double avionics
* two batteries
* two electrical systems
* moderate stall speed (<=55 kts)
* good brakes
* good tires and landing gear that does not break from few bounces
– economical
* very low fuel consumption
* must run on autogas or diesel oil
– at least 2 places with side by side seating, in comfort (enough space in cockpit, a lot more than in a Cessna)
– very long endurance
– capable to high altitude flight
– best glide ratio speed as high as feasible (enabling cruising at L/D max).
– very high best L/D ratio (>=1:25)
– low minimum sink rate
– relatively low power required to keep in level flight
– low drag utilizing extensive laminar flow in the fuselage and wings
– lightning strike protection (copper mesh installed to the whole aircraft)
– utility category (+4.4/-2.2G)
– positively stable in all flight conditions (suitable for IFR flight)
– speed brakes / spoilers
– ballistic recovery chute
– strong roll cage around the cockpit, exceeding the current FAR23 requirement at least with factor of two
– keeping aircraft CG on correct place do not require using ballast (no matter if there are two or one person sitting on front seats)
– aircraft can be parked without anyone sitting on it on its normal upright position
– aircraft shall look stylish and out-of-this-worldish
– surface finish has to be smooth
– large enough control panel for fitting IFR instruments (Large EFIS screen + analog backup instruments)
– good visibility outside
– rudder trim
– aileron trim
– elevator trim
– using aircraft systems has to be simple and all procedures has to be very simple and easy to memorize (aircraft shall not be a checklist-machine)
Summary: Different-looking composite aircraft that incorporates extensive laminar flow, does not stall or spin and that you can fly from Europe to Oskosh and back with ease and with peace of mind. Complies or exceeds with FAR23.
Kokeiltua: Zephyr 2000 100hp
Tulipa tuossa käytyä tyyppilennolla Zephyrilläkin. Aiemmin foorumissa suosittelin Zephyriä eikä ennakko-odotus koneesta juurikaan muuttunut.
Melkeimpä yhä voisin toistaa itseäni ja sanoa että se on hyvä kone aloittelijalle, helppo lentää, vakaa, mukavan tuntuinen jämäkkä sauvatuntuma,
ei liian äkäinen, ja kohtuu nopeakin ultraksi, ainakin tuolla 100 hp Rotax 912ULS -moottorilla.
Lentoonlähtö oli rivakka ollakseen kiintopotkurikone ja nousunopeus oli ultralle tyypillinen “kyllä lähtee” eikä mikään maantijyrä jossa on siivet.
Zephyrin niinikään saa niin tarkkaan trimmiin että kädet voi irrottaa ohjaimilta ja kone menee suoraan ja
kuvitella saattaa että matkalennolla jatkuvan kepittämisen tarpeen puuttuminen on varmasti mukava ominaisuus.
Dynonin EFIS oli kanssa ihan kätevä, siihen tottui tosi äkkiä ja
moottorilennosta keinohorisonttiin tottuneena se on horisonttiviivan piirtävänä oikein kätevä laite jyrkissä kaarroksissa ja trimmatessa kone vaakalentoon.
Väitteet EFIS-laitteen hankaluudesta ja sen pitkäaikaisesta oppimiskynnyksessä eivät kyllä pidä ihan paikkaansa, sanotaanko nyt että se on “ihan kuin
lentosimussa”. Hieman isommat numerot tosin saisi olla sekä korkeus että nopeusnäytössä, jotta näkyvyys etenkin repsikan paikallekin olisi kohtuullisen hyvä,
näkyvyys ohjaajalle on riittävä joskaan ei juhlallinen. Perinteisessä keinohorisontissa on kuitenkin kaikki niin pientä ja miniatyyrista että Dynonin ei niin hirveän
isot numerot ovat kuitenkin aika kohtuullisen kokoisia noin suhteessa, joten ei siitä nyt kuitenkaan liiaksi pitäne valittaa.
Näkyvyys ohjaamosta on hyvä eteenpäin, ei ihan yhtä hyvä kuin Starissa, mutta erinomainen verrattuna moottorikoneisiin tai Dynamicciin.
Kone pysyi hyvin hallinnassa myös hidaslennossa ja ohjaustuntuma säilyi hyvänä sakkaukseen saakka.
Termiikissä kone pompotti ehkäpä enemmän kuin Dynamic, mutta ei niin paljoa kuin Star. Korkeutta joutuu paimentamaan tinttikelillä koska
nostot nostavat tätäkin konetta samaan tyyliin kuin Staria, siis eri tuntuinen kuin vaikka Dynamic tässä mielessä.
Koneen laskuasuun saattaminen on yksinkertaista, tehoja pois ja nokkaa ylös myötätuulessa, ja sitten vaan odottelee että nopeus putoaa laippa-alueelle.
Aika helposti se oli sinne pudotettavissa, aika saman tyyppinen kuin muut nykyultrat. Ykköslaipat ulos laippanopeus säilyttäen perus ja finaali.
Kone tuli kiltisti moottorilla vedätettynä sopivassa kulmassa kohti kenttää valorivistön pysyessä melkein loppuun saakka oikein; kaksi punaista ja
kaksi valkoista. Kosketus kenttään tapahtui pehmeästi päätelineille ensimmäisellä yrittämällä ja koneen asento ja nopeus säilyi finaalissa aika hyvin
ilman vatkaamista. Kone siis ei ole suttunuijaohjattava Smiley. Ensimmäinen kone jota olen kokeillut jonka kanssa pääsi sinuiksi jo ekalla laskulla. Tietysti kumuloitunut
tyyppikokoelma lienee osallisena asiaan myös. Rullailu hallille ja kone halliin. Käsijarru mallia polkupyörä/mopo on ehkä varvasjarruun tottuneelle
ekat pari minuuttia outo, mutta ennen kuin on Malmilla asematasolta 18:n odotuksessa, se tuntuu jo ihan luontevalta.
Nopeusmittarin virheestä ei ole allekirjoittaneella parempaa tietoa, mutta keskimäärin mittari lupasi yli 200 km/h ilmanopeuslukemia maanopeuden vaihdellessa suunnasta
riippuen 140 ja 230 km/h välillä joten mistään hitaan pään ultrakevytkoneesta ei ole kysymys, kone houkuttelee matkalentämiseen tällä kuin muillakin ominaisuuksillaan.
Kone ei ole tyyliltään raaseri vaan pikemminkin muistuttaa Diamond DA-40:n eleganttia fiilistä ja luksuskruisailua. Täydellinen tietenkään kone ei voi olla,
ultrien tyypilliseen tapaan siitä löytyi hieman nipottamista kuomumekanismista missä verrokki DA-40:n osat sopivat keskenään just,
eikä niin että vähän sovitetaan ja asetellaan ja sitten vasta menee linksut paikalleen. Turvallisuusmielessä kuomumekanismin lukitus on todennäköisesti
yksi parhaista näkemistäni tähän mennessä ja tuskin pystyy aukeamaan lennolla vaikka löisi pään kovastikin tintissä kuomuun tai vaikka laskusta ei niin
kesysti käyttäytyvällä koneella sitten tulisikaan niin täydellinen.
Istuma-asento koneessa on erinomainen ja toisin kuin ultrissa yleensä, penkin takana on kattoon asti ylettyvä laipio joka toimii niskatukena jos tulee
kolarissa äkkipysäys (esim. pakkolasku). Yleensä ultrakoneissa tyypillisesti ei ole mitään tukea niskan takana ja kolariturvallisuus on tältäosin vielä
siellä 50-60-luvulla vaikka penkki olisi muuten parempi kuin tyypillisen vanhan moottorikoneen Trabant/Lada-laatua oleva penkki jonka suunnittelukriteereihin
ei lienyt kuulunut termit kuten 26g turvaohjaamo (jo varmaan 0.5 g riittää siihen että penkki luiskahtaa kiskoilla asetuskohdalta taka-asentoon mikä on
lähinnä surkuhupaisaa puhuttaessa samaan aikaan tyyppihyväksyttyjen koneiden väitetystä turvallisuudesta (onhan se uusissa koneissa toki huomioitu, kaikissa
Diamondeissa ja Cirruksissa toki on niskatuet ja penkit jotka ei kolistele pitkin kiskoja kuin junat ilman veturinkuljettajaa)…
Koneen huippunopeus on korkeampi kuin koneen VNe, eli koneella pääsee vaakalennossa VNe:n yli täydellä kaasulla. Vihreä kaari loppuu kuitenkin melko aikaisin tässä konetyypissä josta johtuen lähes täyttä kaasua ei voi 100 hp Rotaxilla käyttää ainakaan matalilla lentokorkeuksilla, lentopinnoilla ehkä (kokeilematta vaikea sanoa).
Huomioitava seikka mainospekseistä valmistajan sivulta:
Spekseissä luvattu 220 km/h cruising speed tarkoittaa että ajetaan Rotaxia melko isoilla kierroksilla ja kovalla kulutuksella.
Pilotin valittavana on siten joko pitkä toimintamatka tai suuri nopeus.
Lento-ohjekirja lupaa seuraavaa 60 litran tankeilla varustetusta versiosta:
140 km/h 1070 km toimintamatka
180 km/h 700 km toimintamatka
200 km/h 666 km toimintamatka
220 km/h 515 km toimintamatka
Kokeiltua: Zephyr 2000 100hp
Tulipa tuossa käytyä tyyppilennolla Zephyrilläkin. Aiemmin foorumissa suosittelin Zephyriä eikä ennakko-odotus koneesta juurikaan muuttunut.
Melkeimpä yhä voisin toistaa itseäni ja sanoa että se on hyvä kone aloittelijalle, helppo lentää, vakaa, mukavan tuntuinen jämäkkä sauvatuntuma,
ei liian äkäinen, ja kohtuu nopeakin ultraksi, ainakin tuolla 100 hp Rotax 912ULS -moottorilla.
Lentoonlähtö oli rivakka ollakseen kiintopotkurikone ja nousunopeus oli ultralle tyypillinen “kyllä lähtee” eikä mikään maantijyrä jossa on siivet.
Zephyrin niinikään saa niin tarkkaan trimmiin että kädet voi irrottaa ohjaimilta ja kone menee suoraan ja
kuvitella saattaa että matkalennolla jatkuvan kepittämisen tarpeen puuttuminen on varmasti mukava ominaisuus.
Dynonin EFIS oli kanssa ihan kätevä, siihen tottui tosi äkkiä ja
moottorilennosta keinohorisonttiin tottuneena se on horisonttiviivan piirtävänä oikein kätevä laite jyrkissä kaarroksissa ja trimmatessa kone vaakalentoon.
Väitteet EFIS-laitteen hankaluudesta ja sen pitkäaikaisesta oppimiskynnyksessä eivät kyllä pidä ihan paikkaansa, sanotaanko nyt että se on “ihan kuin
lentosimussa”. Hieman isommat numerot tosin saisi olla sekä korkeus että nopeusnäytössä, jotta näkyvyys etenkin repsikan paikallekin olisi kohtuullisen hyvä,
näkyvyys ohjaajalle on riittävä joskaan ei juhlallinen. Perinteisessä keinohorisontissa on kuitenkin kaikki niin pientä ja miniatyyrista että Dynonin ei niin hirveän
isot numerot ovat kuitenkin aika kohtuullisen kokoisia noin suhteessa, joten ei siitä nyt kuitenkaan liiaksi pitäne valittaa.
Näkyvyys ohjaamosta on hyvä eteenpäin, ei ihan yhtä hyvä kuin Starissa, mutta erinomainen verrattuna moottorikoneisiin tai Dynamicciin.
Kone pysyi hyvin hallinnassa myös hidaslennossa ja ohjaustuntuma säilyi hyvänä sakkaukseen saakka.
Termiikissä kone pompotti ehkäpä enemmän kuin Dynamic, mutta ei niin paljoa kuin Star. Korkeutta joutuu paimentamaan tinttikelillä koska
nostot nostavat tätäkin konetta samaan tyyliin kuin Staria, siis eri tuntuinen kuin vaikka Dynamic tässä mielessä.
Koneen laskuasuun saattaminen on yksinkertaista, tehoja pois ja nokkaa ylös myötätuulessa, ja sitten vaan odottelee että nopeus putoaa laippa-alueelle.
Aika helposti se oli sinne pudotettavissa, aika saman tyyppinen kuin muut nykyultrat. Ykköslaipat ulos laippanopeus säilyttäen perus ja finaali.
Kone tuli kiltisti moottorilla vedätettynä sopivassa kulmassa kohti kenttää valorivistön pysyessä melkein loppuun saakka oikein; kaksi punaista ja
kaksi valkoista. Kosketus kenttään tapahtui pehmeästi päätelineille ensimmäisellä yrittämällä ja koneen asento ja nopeus säilyi finaalissa aika hyvin
ilman vatkaamista. Kone siis ei ole suttunuijaohjattava Smiley. Ensimmäinen kone jota olen kokeillut jonka kanssa pääsi sinuiksi jo ekalla laskulla. Tietysti kumuloitunut
tyyppikokoelma lienee osallisena asiaan myös. Rullailu hallille ja kone halliin. Käsijarru mallia polkupyörä/mopo on ehkä varvasjarruun tottuneelle
ekat pari minuuttia outo, mutta ennen kuin on Malmilla asematasolta 18:n odotuksessa, se tuntuu jo ihan luontevalta.
Nopeusmittarin virheestä ei ole allekirjoittaneella parempaa tietoa, mutta keskimäärin mittari lupasi yli 200 km/h ilmanopeuslukemia maanopeuden vaihdellessa suunnasta
riippuen 140 ja 230 km/h välillä joten mistään hitaan pään ultrakevytkoneesta ei ole kysymys, kone houkuttelee matkalentämiseen tällä kuin muillakin ominaisuuksillaan.
Kone ei ole tyyliltään raaseri vaan pikemminkin muistuttaa Diamond DA-40:n eleganttia fiilistä ja luksuskruisailua. Täydellinen tietenkään kone ei voi olla,
ultrien tyypilliseen tapaan siitä löytyi hieman nipottamista kuomumekanismista missä verrokki DA-40:n osat sopivat keskenään just,
eikä niin että vähän sovitetaan ja asetellaan ja sitten vasta menee linksut paikalleen. Turvallisuusmielessä kuomumekanismin lukitus on todennäköisesti
yksi parhaista näkemistäni tähän mennessä ja tuskin pystyy aukeamaan lennolla vaikka löisi pään kovastikin tintissä kuomuun tai vaikka laskusta ei niin
kesysti käyttäytyvällä koneella sitten tulisikaan niin täydellinen.
Istuma-asento koneessa on erinomainen ja toisin kuin ultrissa yleensä, penkin takana on kattoon asti ylettyvä laipio joka toimii niskatukena jos tulee
kolarissa äkkipysäys (esim. pakkolasku). Yleensä ultrakoneissa tyypillisesti ei ole mitään tukea niskan takana ja kolariturvallisuus on tältäosin vielä
siellä 50-60-luvulla vaikka penkki olisi muuten parempi kuin tyypillisen vanhan moottorikoneen Trabant/Lada-laatua oleva penkki jonka suunnittelukriteereihin
ei lienyt kuulunut termit kuten 26g turvaohjaamo (jo varmaan 0.5 g riittää siihen että penkki luiskahtaa kiskoilla asetuskohdalta taka-asentoon mikä on
lähinnä surkuhupaisaa puhuttaessa samaan aikaan tyyppihyväksyttyjen koneiden väitetystä turvallisuudesta (onhan se uusissa koneissa toki huomioitu, kaikissa
Diamondeissa ja Cirruksissa toki on niskatuet ja penkit jotka ei kolistele pitkin kiskoja kuin junat ilman veturinkuljettajaa)…
Koneen huippunopeus on korkeampi kuin koneen VNe, eli koneella pääsee vaakalennossa VNe:n yli täydellä kaasulla. Vihreä kaari loppuu kuitenkin melko aikaisin tässä konetyypissä josta johtuen lähes täyttä kaasua ei voi 100 hp Rotaxilla käyttää ainakaan matalilla lentokorkeuksilla, lentopinnoilla ehkä (kokeilematta vaikea sanoa).
Huomioitava seikka mainospekseistä valmistajan sivulta:
Spekseissä luvattu 220 km/h cruising speed tarkoittaa että ajetaan Rotaxia melko isoilla kierroksilla ja kovalla kulutuksella.
Pilotin valittavana on siten joko pitkä toimintamatka tai suuri nopeus.
Lento-ohjekirja lupaa seuraavaa 60 litran tankeilla varustetusta versiosta:
140 km/h 1070 km toimintamatka
180 km/h 700 km toimintamatka
200 km/h 666 km toimintamatka
220 km/h 515 km toimintamatka
Kokeiltua: Cessna C172SP
MIK:llä (Malmin Ilmailukerho, http://www.mik.fi) on nyt uusi lentskari, tyyppiä Cessna 172SP. Moottorina on Lycoming IO-360 kunnes se vaihdetaan Thielert Centurion 2.0 -dieseliin. Kokemukset ovat siis tuosta Lycomingista ja 2-lapaisesta kiintopotkurista. Vertailen edelliseen lentämääni moottorikoneeseen, Cirrus SR20:een (edellinen lento ennen OH-SRH -lentoa moottorikoneella (ultralentoja välissä jos ei lasketa), oli koneella N725SB).
Malmin ilmailukerhon Cessna C172SP ennen diesel-konversiota
Kone on vuosimallia 2001 ja hyvässä maalissa ulkoapäin. Peltikoneille tyypillisesti kupukantaiset niitit ovat kohollaan koneen pinnasta. Koneessa ei ole “flush” -niittejä kuten RV-koneissa on tapana vaikka kyseessä on “uusi vuosimalli”.
Nahkasisustus näyttää lentokoneeksi hyvältä vaikka Cirrusmaiseen automaisuuteen on vielä valovuosi matkaa. Mittaripaneelissa on VFR-varustus, kone ei ole IFR-kelpoinen. Mittaritaulun ilme on siisti.
Ohjaamoon kiipeäminen on Cessnamaisen helppoa. Ovi auki ja ei kuin penkille. Säädettävän penkin säätönuppi on ihan samalla paikalla kuin 40 vuotta vanhoissa Cessnoissa, samoin veivi jolla suoritetaan penkin korkeussäätö. Penkin selkänoja on hieman pidempi kuin vanhoissa malleissa ja se näyttää hienommalta ja tuntuukin hieman paremmalta kuin vanhoissa koneissa. Äheltämisestä huolimatta kuitenkin jäi penkin asento säätämättä mukavaksi, istuma-asento on edelleen sama kuin vanhemmissa koneissa ja niissä en ole löytänyt toistaiseksi penkin säätöä jossa penkin etureuna ei painaisi pohkeisiin ja rasittaisi pidemmän päälle. Asiaa ehkä kompensoi aikaisempaa pehmusteiltaan muutoin mukavampi penkki. Bensamoottoriversiossa Cessna-kaasu on edelleen yhtä epäergonominen kuin aina ennekin. Tämä korjaantuu kun koneeseen asennetaan uusi moottori jossa on mukava FADEC-säätö.
Polttoainepumppu ihmetytti, että pitääkö laittaa päälle vai ei. Lopputulos oli että ei laitettu päälle, koska ohjekirjakaan ei sen käyttöä normaalioperoinnissa ohjeistanut käyttämään, ja se siis puuttui check-listan lisäksi ohjekirjasta. Omituisena ominaisuutena oli fuel-shut-off -valve. Eli polttoainevalitsimen lisäksi löytyy nuppi jolla polttoaineen virtaus loppuu. Sen kanssa saa olla varovainen että esim. matkustaja ei vahingossa osu siihen lennon aikana.
Yoke-ohjauksesta johtuen valokatkaisijat jäävät katveeseen Yoken alle, eikä etenkään pimeässä ole helppo tarkistaa mitkä valot ovat päällä muuten kuin käsikopelolla.
Kahden hengen kuormalla ja tankit täynnä bensaa, kone starttasi yllättävän ärhäkästi, moista esitystä en ole ennen Cessnassa havainnut. Nousunopeudeksi vakiintui yli 1000 jalkaa minuutissa, mikä on loistava lukema verrattuna esim. C152:n nousunopeuteen jossa tulee hieman fiilis että nouseekohan tämä nyt tästä ollenkaan. Suorituskyky ainakin mittarilukemana jatkoi yllättämistään, vaakalento saavutettuna mittarissa luki n. 120 kt IAS ja 124 kt TAS. Ihan hyvin Cessnalta. Lienee isompi moottori ja paikallaan olevat muotosuojat vaikuttamassa asiaan. Jotensakin muutenkin oli vähemmän traktorimainen fiilis kuin C172:ssa yleensä. Polkimien tuntuma on luonteva, kuula pysyy keskellä ilman että siihen kiinnittää huomiota.
Koneessa on trimmipyörä edelleen tutussa paikassa josta trimmatakseen täytyy kurottautua. Uutta koneessa kuitenkin on yokessa oleva sähkötrimmi. Cirruksella lentämisen jälkeen siihen oli tottunut ja se tuntui mukavalta nyt myös tässäkin koneessa. Teki trimmaamisesta jopa helppoa.
30 asteen kaarrokset sujuivat ilman pituusakselin suhteen ylös-alas vuoristorataa katsomalla pelkästään mittareita – lento tapahtui pimeässä joten oikean horisontin referenssi oli vajaa tai kokonaan puuttuva. Koneella on varsin helppo tehdä pimeässä 30 asteen kaarroksia (Cirruksessa joutuu paimentamaan jokseenkin enemmän jotta kaarros pysyy halutulla korkeudella). Ohjainten vaste on verkkainen ja Cirruksen energisyys loistaa poissaolollaan. C172 vanhempien veljiensä tapaan on hieman kömpelö kone. Liikehtiminen ei kuitenkaan liene tämän koneen pääasia ja ohjaimet täysin riittävät koneen ohjaamiseen erilaisissa tilanteissa.
Koneen hidastaminen laskukierrosnopeuteen oli varsin helppoa. Laskukierroksessa on vähemmän tekemistä ruiskumoottorin vuoksi (moottorissa luonnollisesti ei ole kaasuttimen esilämmitystä kun siinä ei ole kaasutinta). Nokan ylös trimmaaminen sujui sähkötrimmillä kivasti.
Kaarros finaaliin, nopeudeksi trimmattu 65 kts ja 2 pykälää laippoja ulkona. Toisin kuin Cirruksella, tällä täytyi tehdä tyypillinen Cessna-lasku, eli kentän pinnassa tehot pois ja vetoa yokesta vimmatusti. Matalasta siipikuormituksesta johtuen C172SP on herkkä ilmassa oleville “möykyille”, joten kiitotien alussa oleva “kumpare” aiheutti sivuttaiskeinahtelua kuin isoilla meren aalloilla. Koneen vaste on hieman kömpelö, mutta riittävä asennon korjaamiseen, tosin adrenaliinia erittyy vereen Cirrusta enemmän (Cirrus on ennustettavampi ja siten jokseenkin helpompi laskeutua).
Johtuen laskutelineiden asennosta ja korkeasta ohjauspaneelista, paremman näkyväisyyden koneisiin tottuneena oli taas hieman poistottumista halutusta koneen asennosta loppuvedossa. Cessna näyttä olevan hyvin vedettynä silloin kun se ei ole vielä hyvin vedettynä ja sitä pitää vetää vimmatusti ja melkoisella voimalla, vaikka kone olisikin hyvin trimmattu lähestymisnopeuteen. Koneen vakavuus tulee hieman rauhattomaksi loppuvedon aikana ja polkimia saa käyttää verrokkikonetta enemmän loppuvetoa tehtäessä ja vaatii pilotilta hieman enemmän tarkkaavaisuutta.
Pyöreillä mittareilla varustetussa Cessnassa luonnollisesti erinäiset asiat (kuten polttoaineen määrän tarkistaminen eksaktisti) ei niin hyvin onnistu kuin Avidyne- tai Garmin-lasiohjaamolla. Viisari näyttää jotain epämääräistä ja siitä pitää sitten tulkita että paljonko mahtaa olla jäljellä. Samaten öljynpaine, volttimittari jne. eivät kuulu ergonomisen helppolukuisten mittareiden kastiin. Mukava uutuus nopeusmittarissa on TAS-asteikko.
Audiopaneeli oli helppo käyttää, etenkin kun pidin siitä esitelmän koulutustilaisuudessa. Bendix/Kingin karttanäyttö (samanlainen kuin siinä uudemmassa TL-96 Starissa) on mukava. Näyttö on kirkas ja siinä näkyy maastokartta, ilmatilarajat, kentät, ilmoittautumispisteet ja kaikki. GPS:n omaa pikkunäyttöä ei tullut liiemmin vilkaistua kun tuo isompi näyttö oli mukavampi katsoa. Näytössä oli taustavalon himmennys, mikä oli tarpeen, koska lento tapahtui pimeyden vallitessa.
Kone toimi kaikin puolin moitteettomasti ja suorituskyky yllätti positiivisesti.
Yleisenen fiilis koneesta on että se on mukavampi kuin esim. OH-CTL tai OH-CAU ja selvä parannus vanhoihin kerhon koneisiin.
Jään mielenkiinnolla odottelemaan miltä kone tuntuu lentää uudella dieselmoottorilla. Matkanopeudessa jäädään todennäköisesti häviölle, mutta toisaalta taas Thielert on helpompi operoida, siinä ei ole käsilaihennusta yms. ja sen käynnistämisproseduuri on yksinkertaisempi ja luonnollisesti se tärkein pointti että sillä on selvästi edullisempaa lentää.
Kokeiltua: Cessna C172SP
MIK:llä (Malmin Ilmailukerho, http://www.mik.fi) on nyt uusi lentskari, tyyppiä Cessna 172SP. Moottorina on Lycoming IO-360 kunnes se vaihdetaan Thielert Centurion 2.0 -dieseliin. Kokemukset ovat siis tuosta Lycomingista ja 2-lapaisesta kiintopotkurista. Vertailen edelliseen lentämääni moottorikoneeseen, Cirrus SR20:een (edellinen lento ennen OH-SRH -lentoa moottorikoneella (ultralentoja välissä jos ei lasketa), oli koneella N725SB).
Malmin ilmailukerhon Cessna C172SP ennen diesel-konversiota
Kone on vuosimallia 2001 ja hyvässä maalissa ulkoapäin. Peltikoneille tyypillisesti kupukantaiset niitit ovat kohollaan koneen pinnasta. Koneessa ei ole “flush” -niittejä kuten RV-koneissa on tapana vaikka kyseessä on “uusi vuosimalli”.
Nahkasisustus näyttää lentokoneeksi hyvältä vaikka Cirrusmaiseen automaisuuteen on vielä valovuosi matkaa. Mittaripaneelissa on VFR-varustus, kone ei ole IFR-kelpoinen. Mittaritaulun ilme on siisti.
Ohjaamoon kiipeäminen on Cessnamaisen helppoa. Ovi auki ja ei kuin penkille. Säädettävän penkin säätönuppi on ihan samalla paikalla kuin 40 vuotta vanhoissa Cessnoissa, samoin veivi jolla suoritetaan penkin korkeussäätö. Penkin selkänoja on hieman pidempi kuin vanhoissa malleissa ja se näyttää hienommalta ja tuntuukin hieman paremmalta kuin vanhoissa koneissa. Äheltämisestä huolimatta kuitenkin jäi penkin asento säätämättä mukavaksi, istuma-asento on edelleen sama kuin vanhemmissa koneissa ja niissä en ole löytänyt toistaiseksi penkin säätöä jossa penkin etureuna ei painaisi pohkeisiin ja rasittaisi pidemmän päälle. Asiaa ehkä kompensoi aikaisempaa pehmusteiltaan muutoin mukavampi penkki. Bensamoottoriversiossa Cessna-kaasu on edelleen yhtä epäergonominen kuin aina ennekin. Tämä korjaantuu kun koneeseen asennetaan uusi moottori jossa on mukava FADEC-säätö.
Polttoainepumppu ihmetytti, että pitääkö laittaa päälle vai ei. Lopputulos oli että ei laitettu päälle, koska ohjekirjakaan ei sen käyttöä normaalioperoinnissa ohjeistanut käyttämään, ja se siis puuttui check-listan lisäksi ohjekirjasta. Omituisena ominaisuutena oli fuel-shut-off -valve. Eli polttoainevalitsimen lisäksi löytyy nuppi jolla polttoaineen virtaus loppuu. Sen kanssa saa olla varovainen että esim. matkustaja ei vahingossa osu siihen lennon aikana.
Yoke-ohjauksesta johtuen valokatkaisijat jäävät katveeseen Yoken alle, eikä etenkään pimeässä ole helppo tarkistaa mitkä valot ovat päällä muuten kuin käsikopelolla.
Kahden hengen kuormalla ja tankit täynnä bensaa, kone starttasi yllättävän ärhäkästi, moista esitystä en ole ennen Cessnassa havainnut. Nousunopeudeksi vakiintui yli 1000 jalkaa minuutissa, mikä on loistava lukema verrattuna esim. C152:n nousunopeuteen jossa tulee hieman fiilis että nouseekohan tämä nyt tästä ollenkaan. Suorituskyky ainakin mittarilukemana jatkoi yllättämistään, vaakalento saavutettuna mittarissa luki n. 120 kt IAS ja 124 kt TAS. Ihan hyvin Cessnalta. Lienee isompi moottori ja paikallaan olevat muotosuojat vaikuttamassa asiaan. Jotensakin muutenkin oli vähemmän traktorimainen fiilis kuin C172:ssa yleensä. Polkimien tuntuma on luonteva, kuula pysyy keskellä ilman että siihen kiinnittää huomiota.
Koneessa on trimmipyörä edelleen tutussa paikassa josta trimmatakseen täytyy kurottautua. Uutta koneessa kuitenkin on yokessa oleva sähkötrimmi. Cirruksella lentämisen jälkeen siihen oli tottunut ja se tuntui mukavalta nyt myös tässäkin koneessa. Teki trimmaamisesta jopa helppoa.
30 asteen kaarrokset sujuivat ilman pituusakselin suhteen ylös-alas vuoristorataa katsomalla pelkästään mittareita – lento tapahtui pimeässä joten oikean horisontin referenssi oli vajaa tai kokonaan puuttuva. Koneella on varsin helppo tehdä pimeässä 30 asteen kaarroksia (Cirruksessa joutuu paimentamaan jokseenkin enemmän jotta kaarros pysyy halutulla korkeudella). Ohjainten vaste on verkkainen ja Cirruksen energisyys loistaa poissaolollaan. C172 vanhempien veljiensä tapaan on hieman kömpelö kone. Liikehtiminen ei kuitenkaan liene tämän koneen pääasia ja ohjaimet täysin riittävät koneen ohjaamiseen erilaisissa tilanteissa.
Koneen hidastaminen laskukierrosnopeuteen oli varsin helppoa. Laskukierroksessa on vähemmän tekemistä ruiskumoottorin vuoksi (moottorissa luonnollisesti ei ole kaasuttimen esilämmitystä kun siinä ei ole kaasutinta). Nokan ylös trimmaaminen sujui sähkötrimmillä kivasti.
Kaarros finaaliin, nopeudeksi trimmattu 65 kts ja 2 pykälää laippoja ulkona. Toisin kuin Cirruksella, tällä täytyi tehdä tyypillinen Cessna-lasku, eli kentän pinnassa tehot pois ja vetoa yokesta vimmatusti. Matalasta siipikuormituksesta johtuen C172SP on herkkä ilmassa oleville “möykyille”, joten kiitotien alussa oleva “kumpare” aiheutti sivuttaiskeinahtelua kuin isoilla meren aalloilla. Koneen vaste on hieman kömpelö, mutta riittävä asennon korjaamiseen, tosin adrenaliinia erittyy vereen Cirrusta enemmän (Cirrus on ennustettavampi ja siten jokseenkin helpompi laskeutua).
Johtuen laskutelineiden asennosta ja korkeasta ohjauspaneelista, paremman näkyväisyyden koneisiin tottuneena oli taas hieman poistottumista halutusta koneen asennosta loppuvedossa. Cessna näyttä olevan hyvin vedettynä silloin kun se ei ole vielä hyvin vedettynä ja sitä pitää vetää vimmatusti ja melkoisella voimalla, vaikka kone olisikin hyvin trimmattu lähestymisnopeuteen. Koneen vakavuus tulee hieman rauhattomaksi loppuvedon aikana ja polkimia saa käyttää verrokkikonetta enemmän loppuvetoa tehtäessä ja vaatii pilotilta hieman enemmän tarkkaavaisuutta.
Pyöreillä mittareilla varustetussa Cessnassa luonnollisesti erinäiset asiat (kuten polttoaineen määrän tarkistaminen eksaktisti) ei niin hyvin onnistu kuin Avidyne- tai Garmin-lasiohjaamolla. Viisari näyttää jotain epämääräistä ja siitä pitää sitten tulkita että paljonko mahtaa olla jäljellä. Samaten öljynpaine, volttimittari jne. eivät kuulu ergonomisen helppolukuisten mittareiden kastiin. Mukava uutuus nopeusmittarissa on TAS-asteikko.
Audiopaneeli oli helppo käyttää, etenkin kun pidin siitä esitelmän koulutustilaisuudessa. Bendix/Kingin karttanäyttö (samanlainen kuin siinä uudemmassa TL-96 Starissa) on mukava. Näyttö on kirkas ja siinä näkyy maastokartta, ilmatilarajat, kentät, ilmoittautumispisteet ja kaikki. GPS:n omaa pikkunäyttöä ei tullut liiemmin vilkaistua kun tuo isompi näyttö oli mukavampi katsoa. Näytössä oli taustavalon himmennys, mikä oli tarpeen, koska lento tapahtui pimeyden vallitessa.
Kone toimi kaikin puolin moitteettomasti ja suorituskyky yllätti positiivisesti.
Yleisenen fiilis koneesta on että se on mukavampi kuin esim. OH-CTL tai OH-CAU ja selvä parannus vanhoihin kerhon koneisiin.
Jään mielenkiinnolla odottelemaan miltä kone tuntuu lentää uudella dieselmoottorilla. Matkanopeudessa jäädään todennäköisesti häviölle, mutta toisaalta taas Thielert on helpompi operoida, siinä ei ole käsilaihennusta yms. ja sen käynnistämisproseduuri on yksinkertaisempi ja luonnollisesti se tärkein pointti että sillä on selvästi edullisempaa lentää.
>HKS700T info and pictures
>Here is the link to information about this very interesting engine:
HKS700T info and pictures
Here is the link to information about this very interesting engine:
>Solar plane makes record flight
>A solar UAV utilizing Lithium-Sulphur batteries and amorphous silicon solar arrays has made a record flight. Read the BBC NEWS story: BBC: Solar plane makes record flight
Solar plane makes record flight
A solar UAV utilizing Lithium-Sulphur batteries and amorphous silicon solar arrays has made a record flight. Read the BBC NEWS story: BBC: Solar plane makes record flight
Illustration for the previously mentioned idea
Here is a rough illustration about the configuration layout. This picture is not drawn into any scale dimensions, it is just “artistic” illustration of the idea. I did not draw taper to wings etc. because I wanted to draw it quickly. Here is the picture:
The drawing program is by the way the Rhino3D for MacOSX, a pre-beta -version of it, I am privileged to be a beta-tester.
Basic locations I had in mind:
Seats are in front of the canard wing. The fuel and baggage is stored between the canard and main wing. The engine nacelles are more forward than in the Long-Ez derivatives. They protrude from the main wing forward in a similar manner like they would be additional fuselages in midwing configuration. The engine nacelles are not necessarily fat enough to look realistic, but they hopefully deliver the basic idea, as this is not a final drawing but a computerized sketch of the configuration layout. The two horizontal stabilizers are in the propeller stream because that way they are more effective than winglet mounted rudders would be on a canard aircraft, and instead of becoming effective at relatively high speed, these can be made to be effective from almost zero speed, similarly than conventionally configured aircraft.
The idea is influenced by this:
http://www.scaled.com/projects/proteus_specifications.pdf
Illustration for the previously mentioned idea
Here is a rough illustration about the configuration layout. This picture is not drawn into any scale dimensions, it is just “artistic” illustration of the idea. I did not draw taper to wings etc. because I wanted to draw it quickly. Here is the picture:
The drawing program is by the way the Rhino3D for MacOSX, a pre-beta -version of it, I am privileged to be a beta-tester.
Basic locations I had in mind:
Seats are in front of the canard wing. The fuel and baggage is stored between the canard and main wing. The engine nacelles are more forward than in the Long-Ez derivatives. They protrude from the main wing forward in a similar manner like they would be additional fuselages in midwing configuration. The engine nacelles are not necessarily fat enough to look realistic, but they hopefully deliver the basic idea, as this is not a final drawing but a computerized sketch of the configuration layout. The two horizontal stabilizers are in the propeller stream because that way they are more effective than winglet mounted rudders would be on a canard aircraft, and instead of becoming effective at relatively high speed, these can be made to be effective from almost zero speed, similarly than conventionally configured aircraft.
The idea is influenced by this:
http://www.scaled.com/projects/proteus_specifications.pdf
>Catdroid v3 – evolution mix
>Here is another mix of the catdroid song. This has some elements changed and some extended. I am particularly happy with the intro section now. It has some ambient elements which fit with each other surprisingly well.
Enjoy!
Comments are welcome also, please give your opinion, which version you like the best.
Catdroid v3 – evolution mix
Here is another mix of the catdroid song. This has some elements changed and some extended. I am particularly happy with the intro section now. It has some ambient elements which fit with each other surprisingly well.
Enjoy!
Comments are welcome also, please give your opinion, which version you like the best.
>A configuration idea for a canard aircraft
>Canard configuration is usually quite problematic and it has several compromises which decrease the benefits that could be otherwise obtained from the configuration. However, there is one advantage on canard configuration which is better than traditional configuration: stall and spin resistance. If the major design goal is stall and spin resistance, the penalties from the canard configuration can be assumed acceptable. After all very many aircraft accidents are caused by stall/spin.
So how to do a twin engine propeller canard so that the engine pods can be utilized also to other use?
So the idea goes:
1. take a look at Burt Rutan’s Proteus.
2. see the booms for the horizontal stabilizers.
3. Instead of placing jet engines to the fuselage, why not put tractor propellers to the front of the booms.
3. The CG on canard aircraft is between the two wings, the long fuselage solves the problem where to place the fuel in
a canard AC, it can be stored between the wings inside the fuselage.
Any comments/arguments why this would not be a good idea in your opinion?
A configuration idea for a canard aircraft
Canard configuration is usually quite problematic and it has several compromises which decrease the benefits that could be otherwise obtained from the configuration. However, there is one advantage on canard configuration which is better than traditional configuration: stall and spin resistance. If the major design goal is stall and spin resistance, the penalties from the canard configuration can be assumed acceptable. After all very many aircraft accidents are caused by stall/spin.
So how to do a twin engine propeller canard so that the engine pods can be utilized also to other use?
So the idea goes:
1. take a look at Burt Rutan’s Proteus.
2. see the booms for the horizontal stabilizers.
3. Instead of placing jet engines to the fuselage, why not put tractor propellers to the front of the booms.
3. The CG on canard aircraft is between the two wings, the long fuselage solves the problem where to place the fuel in
a canard AC, it can be stored between the wings inside the fuselage.
Any comments/arguments why this would not be a good idea in your opinion?
>Eggenfellner’s aircraft project
>Eggenfellner seems to be building a new aircraft type:
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/E2B.htm
Interesting design choice – flying wing, no tail. Sounds like no flaps on this machine for increasing Clmax.
Eggenfellner’s aircraft project
Eggenfellner seems to be building a new aircraft type:
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/E2B.htm
Interesting design choice – flying wing, no tail. Sounds like no flaps on this machine for increasing Clmax.
Eggenfellner’s aircraft project
Eggenfellner seems to be building a new aircraft type:
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/E2B.htm
Interesting design choice – flying wing, no tail. Sounds like no flaps on this machine for increasing Clmax.
Eggenfellner’s aircraft project
Eggenfellner seems to be building a new aircraft type:
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/E2B.htm
Interesting design choice – flying wing, no tail. Sounds like no flaps on this machine for increasing Clmax.
Eggenfellner’s aircraft project
Eggenfellner seems to be building a new aircraft type:
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/E2B.htm
Interesting design choice – flying wing, no tail. Sounds like no flaps on this machine for increasing Clmax.
Eggenfellner’s aircraft project
Eggenfellner seems to be building a new aircraft type:
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/E2B.htm
Interesting design choice – flying wing, no tail. Sounds like no flaps on this machine for increasing Clmax.
Eggenfellner’s aircraft project
Eggenfellner seems to be building a new aircraft type:
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/E2B.htm
Interesting design choice – flying wing, no tail. Sounds like no flaps on this machine for increasing Clmax.
Eggenfellner’s aircraft project
Eggenfellner seems to be building a new aircraft type:
http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/E2B.htm
Interesting design choice – flying wing, no tail. Sounds like no flaps on this machine for increasing Clmax.
>Drag coefficient for everyone
>It seems that Wikipedia explains drag coefficient quite well. Here are two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation
Here are NASA’s study materials about drag:
Drag coefficient for everyone
It seems that Wikipedia explains drag coefficient quite well. Here are two articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation
Here are NASA’s study materials about drag:
>Diablo Maemo SDK installation issue solution
>In Ubuntu hardy:
Host kernel mmap_min addr value is incompatible with the QEMU version used in scratchbox.
Quick help:
$ sudo su
$ nano /etc/sysctl.conf
edit line which begins ‘vm.mmap_min_addr’ (search it with CTRL-W) to
‘vm.mmap_min_addr = 4096’
CTRL-X for save & quit
$ sysctl -p
Diablo Maemo SDK installation issue solution
In Ubuntu hardy:
Host kernel mmap_min addr value is incompatible with the QEMU version used in scratchbox.
Quick help:
$ sudo su
$ nano /etc/sysctl.conf
edit line which begins ‘vm.mmap_min_addr’ (search it with CTRL-W) to
‘vm.mmap_min_addr = 4096’
CTRL-X for save & quit
$ sysctl -p
>VDSO problem with scratchbox in Ubuntu Hardy?
>Quick help:
$ sudo su
$ nano /etc/sysctl.conf
Add line ‘vm.vdso_enabled = 0’ to the end of file.
Press ctrl-x to exit and save.
Then run ‘sysctl -p’ (while remaining as root)
VDSO problem with scratchbox in Ubuntu Hardy?
Quick help:
$ sudo su
$ nano /etc/sysctl.conf
Add line ‘vm.vdso_enabled = 0’ to the end of file.
Press ctrl-x to exit and save.
Then run ‘sysctl -p’ (while remaining as root)
>NASA NLF-115-20%
>I was changing the parameters in the DesignFoil demo. And got interesting positive change for the NLF-115 airfoil: increasing the thickness to 20%, it does not effect the laminar bucket low Cl area, but it increases the laminar bucket towards higher Cl area. On other airfoils, this change usually moves the low drag bucket upwards to higher Cl, but on this airfoil, the low drag bucket seems to rather extend than move. I was trying it out with Reynolds numbers 2000000, 3000000 and 5000000.
The higher thickness (if the simulation is at all correct) would be favorable for structural reasons. The Burt Rutan’s canards also use thick airfoils in the canard wing, the thickness of the original GU25 is 20%. I don’t know the exact thickness of Roncz R1145MS and haven’t measured (I have the Cozy MKIV plans which have the Roncz airfoil included, so I could measure it if I had time to look at it).
The larger thickness contributes to the strength achieved (only those little glass fiber spar caps are needed instead of very heavy big wing spar or alternatively a wing spar made of carbon fiber).
NASA NLF-115-20%
I was changing the parameters in the DesignFoil demo. And got interesting positive change for the NLF-115 airfoil: increasing the thickness to 20%, it does not effect the laminar bucket low Cl area, but it increases the laminar bucket towards higher Cl area. On other airfoils, this change usually moves the low drag bucket upwards to higher Cl, but on this airfoil, the low drag bucket seems to rather extend than move. I was trying it out with Reynolds numbers 2000000, 3000000 and 5000000.
The higher thickness (if the simulation is at all correct) would be favorable for structural reasons. The Burt Rutan’s canards also use thick airfoils in the canard wing, the thickness of the original GU25 is 20%. I don’t know the exact thickness of Roncz R1145MS and haven’t measured (I have the Cozy MKIV plans which have the Roncz airfoil included, so I could measure it if I had time to look at it).
The larger thickness contributes to the strength achieved (only those little glass fiber spar caps are needed instead of very heavy big wing spar or alternatively a wing spar made of carbon fiber).
>Catdroid v2
>Here is another mix of the Catdroid. It is now a bit longer and the strings are removed from part A when it plays the first time (This is BABABABB).
Enjoy!
Catdroid v2
Here is another mix of the Catdroid. It is now a bit longer and the strings are removed from part A when it plays the first time (This is BABABABB).
Enjoy!
Developing Qt Applications on Maemo
Kate Alhola’s and Antonio Aloisio’s presentation on Akademy 2008 about how to develop Qt Application on Maemo.
http://www.vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1539512&server=www.vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1
Developing Maemo Qt Applications from Karoliina Salminen on Vimeo.
Developing Qt Applications on Maemo
Kate Alhola’s and Antonio Aloisio’s presentation on Akademy 2008 about how to develop Qt Application on Maemo.
Developing Maemo Qt Applications from Karoliina Salminen on Vimeo.
>New track: Catdroid
Equipment and software used: Apple iMac, Logic Studio, Novation V-synth, Soundtrack Pro, M-audio Axiom 25 as master keyboard. Track utilizes, as usual, my favorites: Tape delay and Space Designer effects.
The Fairlight samples in the beginning were from Internet, all other sounds are from either Novation or from one of the software synthesizers in the Logic Studio.
Here is alternative version of the song (with heavier compression, which makes it louder):
New track: Catdroid
Equipment and software used: Apple iMac, Logic Studio, Novation V-synth, Soundtrack Pro, M-audio Axiom 25 as master keyboard. Track utilizes, as usual, my favorites: Tape delay and Space Designer effects.
The Fairlight samples in the beginning were from Internet, all other sounds are from either Novation or from one of the software synthesizers in the Logic Studio.
Here is alternative version of the song (with heavier compression, which makes it louder):
>New link
>Here is a link to couple of aerodynamics articles:
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/airfoils/
New link
Here is a link to couple of aerodynamics articles:
http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/airfoils/
>Finally found a good airfoil program
>I have been trying out about all demo versions available of airfoil programs. Best of them so far has been Xfoil and the Javafoil. However, neither seems to accurately simulate the laminar bucket.
I was surprised to try the Designfoil from Dreesecode: it simulates the laminar bucket, and the demo version also run on Ubuntu Hardy Linux with wine. Excellent, the first windows aircraft software that actually runs on Linux so far.
Finally found a good airfoil program
I have been trying out about all demo versions available of airfoil programs. Best of them so far has been Xfoil and the Javafoil. However, neither seems to accurately simulate the laminar bucket.
I was surprised to try the Designfoil from Dreesecode: it simulates the laminar bucket, and the demo version also run on Ubuntu Hardy Linux with wine. Excellent, the first windows aircraft software that actually runs on Linux so far.
Studiogear: Karoliina’s portable studio
The studio gear nowadays fits to a very small space. This setup has Kate’s Macbook, M-audio Axiom keyboard (which is USB powered) and the Mac runs Apple Logic Studio and also Novation V-Synth. At home I am using iMac.
I no longer use the Wavestation or Roland D70 as a sound source very frequently, I rather use them as keyboard controllers. The Access Virus b I have is still quite useful instrument (although the Access Virus Snow costs the same as new now than the b-model costed used when we purchased it). Same applies for the Nord Modular (which I purchased from Fin (Christian Worton)). I have the Fin’s patches still on it. I don’t have the official editor for it for any of my operating systems though, but that is no problem, someone has done a open source editor for the NM and it works great on Mac and Linux. I don’t usually have that much time to tinker with the sounds since I have so wide selection (many thousands) of presets available that I would be stupid to not use some of them – maybe edit a bit to suit my needs, but why to reinvent the wheel if someone has invented it already, I rather concentrate on making music nowadays.
I really love the Logic Studio, it is propably my best software purchase I have ever made to the date. Excellent software with excellent add-ons. Everything is top-notch and as Apple products in usual, everything is also very nice… I would highly recommend Logic Studio if you are serious about producing music. I have tried demo-version of Abbleton Live and, tried Sonar longer time ago etc., but none of them are like the Logic. And now, when the Logic is an Apple product, the user interface has gone through some renewal, it is no longer like it used to be on PC “press middle button of the mouse on top of nowhere and use your nose to push CTRL at the same time while pressing some magic keys with your left hand”. Now all the features are available for ordinary mortals like me.
So how I like the Axiom? I read some praising reviews and some reviews where the reviewer totally disliked the keyboard. Based on my experience on different synth action -type keyboards (Korg, Roland, Nord etc.), the M-Audio Axiom is not at all a bad one. Actually it has propably the best feel of all keyboards I have. It only has 2 octaves on it, but for portability’s sake, it is an acceptable compromise. I really like it. It is semi-weighted and it seems that some people don’t like semi-weighted keyboards, but I like it very much and I can play very accurately with it. The Nord Modular’s keyboard someone said to be good is quite crappy toy compared to this one, the Korg has sticky black keys, the Roland has pretty elegant action, but this one can be really used for serious playing and the semi-weighted feel is in my opinion great. The build quality is good and the price-value ratio is excellent. It does not have a metal case, but who cares, I don’t want any steel case for something I am going to put in a backbag, this already weights quite a bit when combined with the Mac, but the studio is now movable, and usable – instead of studio being lots of gear disconnected in a storage room, this thing works and producing music is fun an easy – no cables, just one USB-cable and the headphone cable.
Studiogear: Karoliina’s portable studio
The studio gear nowadays fits to a very small space. This setup has Kate’s Macbook, M-audio Axiom keyboard (which is USB powered) and the Mac runs Apple Logic Studio and also Novation V-Synth. At home I am using iMac.
I no longer use the Wavestation or Roland D70 as a sound source very frequently, I rather use them as keyboard controllers. The Access Virus b I have is still quite useful instrument (although the Access Virus Snow costs the same as new now than the b-model costed used when we purchased it). Same applies for the Nord Modular (which I purchased from Fin (Christian Worton)). I have the Fin’s patches still on it. I don’t have the official editor for it for any of my operating systems though, but that is no problem, someone has done a open source editor for the NM and it works great on Mac and Linux. I don’t usually have that much time to tinker with the sounds since I have so wide selection (many thousands) of presets available that I would be stupid to not use some of them – maybe edit a bit to suit my needs, but why to reinvent the wheel if someone has invented it already, I rather concentrate on making music nowadays.
I really love the Logic Studio, it is propably my best software purchase I have ever made to the date. Excellent software with excellent add-ons. Everything is top-notch and as Apple products in usual, everything is also very nice… I would highly recommend Logic Studio if you are serious about producing music. I have tried demo-version of Abbleton Live and, tried Sonar longer time ago etc., but none of them are like the Logic. And now, when the Logic is an Apple product, the user interface has gone through some renewal, it is no longer like it used to be on PC “press middle button of the mouse on top of nowhere and use your nose to push CTRL at the same time while pressing some magic keys with your left hand”. Now all the features are available for ordinary mortals like me.
So how I like the Axiom? I read some praising reviews and some reviews where the reviewer totally disliked the keyboard. Based on my experience on different synth action -type keyboards (Korg, Roland, Nord etc.), the M-Audio Axiom is not at all a bad one. Actually it has propably the best feel of all keyboards I have. It only has 2 octaves on it, but for portability’s sake, it is an acceptable compromise. I really like it. It is semi-weighted and it seems that some people don’t like semi-weighted keyboards, but I like it very much and I can play very accurately with it. The Nord Modular’s keyboard someone said to be good is quite crappy toy compared to this one, the Korg has sticky black keys, the Roland has pretty elegant action, but this one can be really used for serious playing and the semi-weighted feel is in my opinion great. The build quality is good and the price-value ratio is excellent. It does not have a metal case, but who cares, I don’t want any steel case for something I am going to put in a backbag, this already weights quite a bit when combined with the Mac, but the studio is now movable, and usable – instead of studio being lots of gear disconnected in a storage room, this thing works and producing music is fun an easy – no cables, just one USB-cable and the headphone cable.
Studiogear: Karoliina’s portable studio
The studio gear nowadays fits to a very small space. This setup has Kate’s Macbook, M-audio Axiom keyboard (which is USB powered) and the Mac runs Apple Logic Studio and also Novation V-Synth. At home I am using iMac.
I no longer use the Wavestation or Roland D70 as a sound source very frequently, I rather use them as keyboard controllers. The Access Virus b I have is still quite useful instrument (although the Access Virus Snow costs the same as new now than the b-model costed used when we purchased it). Same applies for the Nord Modular (which I purchased from Fin (Christian Worton)). I have the Fin’s patches still on it. I don’t have the official editor for it for any of my operating systems though, but that is no problem, someone has done a open source editor for the NM and it works great on Mac and Linux. I don’t usually have that much time to tinker with the sounds since I have so wide selection (many thousands) of presets available that I would be stupid to not use some of them – maybe edit a bit to suit my needs, but why to reinvent the wheel if someone has invented it already, I rather concentrate on making music nowadays.
I really love the Logic Studio, it is propably my best software purchase I have ever made to the date. Excellent software with excellent add-ons. Everything is top-notch and as Apple products in usual, everything is also very nice… I would highly recommend Logic Studio if you are serious about producing music. I have tried demo-version of Abbleton Live and, tried Sonar longer time ago etc., but none of them are like the Logic. And now, when the Logic is an Apple product, the user interface has gone through some renewal, it is no longer like it used to be on PC “press middle button of the mouse on top of nowhere and use your nose to push CTRL at the same time while pressing some magic keys with your left hand”. Now all the features are available for ordinary mortals like me.
So how I like the Axiom? I read some praising reviews and some reviews where the reviewer totally disliked the keyboard. Based on my experience on different synth action -type keyboards (Korg, Roland, Nord etc.), the M-Audio Axiom is not at all a bad one. Actually it has propably the best feel of all keyboards I have. It only has 2 octaves on it, but for portability’s sake, it is an acceptable compromise. I really like it. It is semi-weighted and it seems that some people don’t like semi-weighted keyboards, but I like it very much and I can play very accurately with it. The Nord Modular’s keyboard someone said to be good is quite crappy toy compared to this one, the Korg has sticky black keys, the Roland has pretty elegant action, but this one can be really used for serious playing and the semi-weighted feel is in my opinion great. The build quality is good and the price-value ratio is excellent. It does not have a metal case, but who cares, I don’t want any steel case for something I am going to put in a backbag, this already weights quite a bit when combined with the Mac, but the studio is now movable, and usable – instead of studio being lots of gear disconnected in a storage room, this thing works and producing music is fun an easy – no cables, just one USB-cable and the headphone cable.
Studiogear: Karoliina’s portable studio
The studio gear nowadays fits to a very small space. This setup has Kate’s Macbook, M-audio Axiom keyboard (which is USB powered) and the Mac runs Apple Logic Studio and also Novation V-Synth. At home I am using iMac.
I no longer use the Wavestation or Roland D70 as a sound source very frequently, I rather use them as keyboard controllers. The Access Virus b I have is still quite useful instrument (although the Access Virus Snow costs the same as new now than the b-model costed used when we purchased it). Same applies for the Nord Modular (which I purchased from Fin (Christian Worton)). I have the Fin’s patches still on it. I don’t have the official editor for it for any of my operating systems though, but that is no problem, someone has done a open source editor for the NM and it works great on Mac and Linux. I don’t usually have that much time to tinker with the sounds since I have so wide selection (many thousands) of presets available that I would be stupid to not use some of them – maybe edit a bit to suit my needs, but why to reinvent the wheel if someone has invented it already, I rather concentrate on making music nowadays.
I really love the Logic Studio, it is propably my best software purchase I have ever made to the date. Excellent software with excellent add-ons. Everything is top-notch and as Apple products in usual, everything is also very nice… I would highly recommend Logic Studio if you are serious about producing music. I have tried demo-version of Abbleton Live and, tried Sonar longer time ago etc., but none of them are like the Logic. And now, when the Logic is an Apple product, the user interface has gone through some renewal, it is no longer like it used to be on PC “press middle button of the mouse on top of nowhere and use your nose to push CTRL at the same time while pressing some magic keys with your left hand”. Now all the features are available for ordinary mortals like me.
So how I like the Axiom? I read some praising reviews and some reviews where the reviewer totally disliked the keyboard. Based on my experience on different synth action -type keyboards (Korg, Roland, Nord etc.), the M-Audio Axiom is not at all a bad one. Actually it has propably the best feel of all keyboards I have. It only has 2 octaves on it, but for portability’s sake, it is an acceptable compromise. I really like it. It is semi-weighted and it seems that some people don’t like semi-weighted keyboards, but I like it very much and I can play very accurately with it. The Nord Modular’s keyboard someone said to be good is quite crappy toy compared to this one, the Korg has sticky black keys, the Roland has pretty elegant action, but this one can be really used for serious playing and the semi-weighted feel is in my opinion great. The build quality is good and the price-value ratio is excellent. It does not have a metal case, but who cares, I don’t want any steel case for something I am going to put in a backbag, this already weights quite a bit when combined with the Mac, but the studio is now movable, and usable – instead of studio being lots of gear disconnected in a storage room, this thing works and producing music is fun an easy – no cables, just one USB-cable and the headphone cable.
Studiogear: Karoliina’s portable studio
The studio gear nowadays fits to a very small space. This setup has Kate’s Macbook, M-audio Axiom keyboard (which is USB powered) and the Mac runs Apple Logic Studio and also Novation V-Synth. At home I am using iMac.
I no longer use the Wavestation or Roland D70 as a sound source very frequently, I rather use them as keyboard controllers. The Access Virus b I have is still quite useful instrument (although the Access Virus Snow costs the same as new now than the b-model costed used when we purchased it). Same applies for the Nord Modular (which I purchased from Fin (Christian Worton)). I have the Fin’s patches still on it. I don’t have the official editor for it for any of my operating systems though, but that is no problem, someone has done a open source editor for the NM and it works great on Mac and Linux. I don’t usually have that much time to tinker with the sounds since I have so wide selection (many thousands) of presets available that I would be stupid to not use some of them – maybe edit a bit to suit my needs, but why to reinvent the wheel if someone has invented it already, I rather concentrate on making music nowadays.
I really love the Logic Studio, it is propably my best software purchase I have ever made to the date. Excellent software with excellent add-ons. Everything is top-notch and as Apple products in usual, everything is also very nice… I would highly recommend Logic Studio if you are serious about producing music. I have tried demo-version of Abbleton Live and, tried Sonar longer time ago etc., but none of them are like the Logic. And now, when the Logic is an Apple product, the user interface has gone through some renewal, it is no longer like it used to be on PC “press middle button of the mouse on top of nowhere and use your nose to push CTRL at the same time while pressing some magic keys with your left hand”. Now all the features are available for ordinary mortals like me.
So how I like the Axiom? I read some praising reviews and some reviews where the reviewer totally disliked the keyboard. Based on my experience on different synth action -type keyboards (Korg, Roland, Nord etc.), the M-Audio Axiom is not at all a bad one. Actually it has propably the best feel of all keyboards I have. It only has 2 octaves on it, but for portability’s sake, it is an acceptable compromise. I really like it. It is semi-weighted and it seems that some people don’t like semi-weighted keyboards, but I like it very much and I can play very accurately with it. The Nord Modular’s keyboard someone said to be good is quite crappy toy compared to this one, the Korg has sticky black keys, the Roland has pretty elegant action, but this one can be really used for serious playing and the semi-weighted feel is in my opinion great. The build quality is good and the price-value ratio is excellent. It does not have a metal case, but who cares, I don’t want any steel case for something I am going to put in a backbag, this already weights quite a bit when combined with the Mac, but the studio is now movable, and usable – instead of studio being lots of gear disconnected in a storage room, this thing works and producing music is fun an easy – no cables, just one USB-cable and the headphone cable.
Studiogear: Karoliina’s portable studio
The studio gear nowadays fits to a very small space. This setup has Kate’s Macbook, M-audio Axiom keyboard (which is USB powered) and the Mac runs Apple Logic Studio and also Novation V-Synth. At home I am using iMac.
I no longer use the Wavestation or Roland D70 as a sound source very frequently, I rather use them as keyboard controllers. The Access Virus b I have is still quite useful instrument (although the Access Virus Snow costs the same as new now than the b-model costed used when we purchased it). Same applies for the Nord Modular (which I purchased from Fin (Christian Worton)). I have the Fin’s patches still on it. I don’t have the official editor for it for any of my operating systems though, but that is no problem, someone has done a open source editor for the NM and it works great on Mac and Linux. I don’t usually have that much time to tinker with the sounds since I have so wide selection (many thousands) of presets available that I would be stupid to not use some of them – maybe edit a bit to suit my needs, but why to reinvent the wheel if someone has invented it already, I rather concentrate on making music nowadays.
I really love the Logic Studio, it is propably my best software purchase I have ever made to the date. Excellent software with excellent add-ons. Everything is top-notch and as Apple products in usual, everything is also very nice… I would highly recommend Logic Studio if you are serious about producing music. I have tried demo-version of Abbleton Live and, tried Sonar longer time ago etc., but none of them are like the Logic. And now, when the Logic is an Apple product, the user interface has gone through some renewal, it is no longer like it used to be on PC “press middle button of the mouse on top of nowhere and use your nose to push CTRL at the same time while pressing some magic keys with your left hand”. Now all the features are available for ordinary mortals like me.
So how I like the Axiom? I read some praising reviews and some reviews where the reviewer totally disliked the keyboard. Based on my experience on different synth action -type keyboards (Korg, Roland, Nord etc.), the M-Audio Axiom is not at all a bad one. Actually it has propably the best feel of all keyboards I have. It only has 2 octaves on it, but for portability’s sake, it is an acceptable compromise. I really like it. It is semi-weighted and it seems that some people don’t like semi-weighted keyboards, but I like it very much and I can play very accurately with it. The Nord Modular’s keyboard someone said to be good is quite crappy toy compared to this one, the Korg has sticky black keys, the Roland has pretty elegant action, but this one can be really used for serious playing and the semi-weighted feel is in my opinion great. The build quality is good and the price-value ratio is excellent. It does not have a metal case, but who cares, I don’t want any steel case for something I am going to put in a backbag, this already weights quite a bit when combined with the Mac, but the studio is now movable, and usable – instead of studio being lots of gear disconnected in a storage room, this thing works and producing music is fun an easy – no cables, just one USB-cable and the headphone cable.
Studiogear: Karoliina’s portable studio
The studio gear nowadays fits to a very small space. This setup has Kate’s Macbook, M-audio Axiom keyboard (which is USB powered) and the Mac runs Apple Logic Studio and also Novation V-Synth. At home I am using iMac.
I no longer use the Wavestation or Roland D70 as a sound source very frequently, I rather use them as keyboard controllers. The Access Virus b I have is still quite useful instrument (although the Access Virus Snow costs the same as new now than the b-model costed used when we purchased it). Same applies for the Nord Modular (which I purchased from Fin (Christian Worton)). I have the Fin’s patches still on it. I don’t have the official editor for it for any of my operating systems though, but that is no problem, someone has done a open source editor for the NM and it works great on Mac and Linux. I don’t usually have that much time to tinker with the sounds since I have so wide selection (many thousands) of presets available that I would be stupid to not use some of them – maybe edit a bit to suit my needs, but why to reinvent the wheel if someone has invented it already, I rather concentrate on making music nowadays.
I really love the Logic Studio, it is propably my best software purchase I have ever made to the date. Excellent software with excellent add-ons. Everything is top-notch and as Apple products in usual, everything is also very nice… I would highly recommend Logic Studio if you are serious about producing music. I have tried demo-version of Abbleton Live and, tried Sonar longer time ago etc., but none of them are like the Logic. And now, when the Logic is an Apple product, the user interface has gone through some renewal, it is no longer like it used to be on PC “press middle button of the mouse on top of nowhere and use your nose to push CTRL at the same time while pressing some magic keys with your left hand”. Now all the features are available for ordinary mortals like me.
So how I like the Axiom? I read some praising reviews and some reviews where the reviewer totally disliked the keyboard. Based on my experience on different synth action -type keyboards (Korg, Roland, Nord etc.), the M-Audio Axiom is not at all a bad one. Actually it has propably the best feel of all keyboards I have. It only has 2 octaves on it, but for portability’s sake, it is an acceptable compromise. I really like it. It is semi-weighted and it seems that some people don’t like semi-weighted keyboards, but I like it very much and I can play very accurately with it. The Nord Modular’s keyboard someone said to be good is quite crappy toy compared to this one, the Korg has sticky black keys, the Roland has pretty elegant action, but this one can be really used for serious playing and the semi-weighted feel is in my opinion great. The build quality is good and the price-value ratio is excellent. It does not have a metal case, but who cares, I don’t want any steel case for something I am going to put in a backbag, this already weights quite a bit when combined with the Mac, but the studio is now movable, and usable – instead of studio being lots of gear disconnected in a storage room, this thing works and producing music is fun an easy – no cables, just one USB-cable and the headphone cable.
Studiogear: Karoliina’s portable studio
The studio gear nowadays fits to a very small space. This setup has Kate’s Macbook, M-audio Axiom keyboard (which is USB powered) and the Mac runs Apple Logic Studio and also Novation V-Synth. At home I am using iMac.
I no longer use the Wavestation or Roland D70 as a sound source very frequently, I rather use them as keyboard controllers. The Access Virus b I have is still quite useful instrument (although the Access Virus Snow costs the same as new now than the b-model costed used when we purchased it). Same applies for the Nord Modular (which I purchased from Fin (Christian Worton)). I have the Fin’s patches still on it. I don’t have the official editor for it for any of my operating systems though, but that is no problem, someone has done a open source editor for the NM and it works great on Mac and Linux. I don’t usually have that much time to tinker with the sounds since I have so wide selection (many thousands) of presets available that I would be stupid to not use some of them – maybe edit a bit to suit my needs, but why to reinvent the wheel if someone has invented it already, I rather concentrate on making music nowadays.
I really love the Logic Studio, it is propably my best software purchase I have ever made to the date. Excellent software with excellent add-ons. Everything is top-notch and as Apple products in usual, everything is also very nice… I would highly recommend Logic Studio if you are serious about producing music. I have tried demo-version of Abbleton Live and, tried Sonar longer time ago etc., but none of them are like the Logic. And now, when the Logic is an Apple product, the user interface has gone through some renewal, it is no longer like it used to be on PC “press middle button of the mouse on top of nowhere and use your nose to push CTRL at the same time while pressing some magic keys with your left hand”. Now all the features are available for ordinary mortals like me.
So how I like the Axiom? I read some praising reviews and some reviews where the reviewer totally disliked the keyboard. Based on my experience on different synth action -type keyboards (Korg, Roland, Nord etc.), the M-Audio Axiom is not at all a bad one. Actually it has propably the best feel of all keyboards I have. It only has 2 octaves on it, but for portability’s sake, it is an acceptable compromise. I really like it. It is semi-weighted and it seems that some people don’t like semi-weighted keyboards, but I like it very much and I can play very accurately with it. The Nord Modular’s keyboard someone said to be good is quite crappy toy compared to this one, the Korg has sticky black keys, the Roland has pretty elegant action, but this one can be really used for serious playing and the semi-weighted feel is in my opinion great. The build quality is good and the price-value ratio is excellent. It does not have a metal case, but who cares, I don’t want any steel case for something I am going to put in a backbag, this already weights quite a bit when combined with the Mac, but the studio is now movable, and usable – instead of studio being lots of gear disconnected in a storage room, this thing works and producing music is fun an easy – no cables, just one USB-cable and the headphone cable.
>Some calculations for plane which would utilize two HKS 700 turbos
>I was flying today (as a passanger) to Brussels and I wasn’t doing nothing, I had paper, pen and the HP calculator with me. And of course J.D. Anderson’s Aircraft performance & design as a reference.
So I ended up with some numbers, but I know already that they are a bit off – since I calculated AR the other way around and got with the K and e I used AR = 10 even if I had chosen that the AR = 14. Therefore the climb performance may be even quite pessimistic. Besides of that I was reading yet another aerodynamics book which stated that e is as high as 0.9 for clean airplane.
However, numbers are: Trimaran configuration, 2 x HKS 700 turbo, 2 places, fuel 200 liters, S = 99 ft^2, MTOW 1980 lbs (maybe 900 kg would still be within limits, haven’t checked), AR = 14. Slotted flaps and flapped ailerons. Taper 0.5. Low drag laminar airfoil and 60% laminar fuselage shape and the plane will be quite fast. RG is assumed, gear stored in the pusher prop engine pods.
Some calculations for plane which would utilize two HKS 700 turbos
I was flying today (as a passanger) to Brussels and I wasn’t doing nothing, I had paper, pen and the HP calculator with me. And of course J.D. Anderson’s Aircraft performance & design as a reference.
So I ended up with some numbers, but I know already that they are a bit off – since I calculated AR the other way around and got with the K and e I used AR = 10 even if I had chosen that the AR = 14. Therefore the climb performance may be even quite pessimistic. Besides of that I was reading yet another aerodynamics book which stated that e is as high as 0.9 for clean airplane.
However, numbers are: Trimaran configuration, 2 x HKS 700 turbo, 2 places, fuel 200 liters, S = 99 ft^2, MTOW 1980 lbs (maybe 900 kg would still be within limits, haven’t checked), AR = 14. Slotted flaps and flapped ailerons. Taper 0.5. Low drag laminar airfoil and 60% laminar fuselage shape and the plane will be quite fast. RG is assumed, gear stored in the pusher prop engine pods.
>Another engine, HKS700 turbo – 80 hp turbocharged
>Some information about the new 80 hp turbocharged fuel injected HKS 700 can be found from here:
Another engine, HKS700 turbo – 80 hp turbocharged
Some information about the new 80 hp turbocharged fuel injected HKS 700 can be found from here:
>Interesting diesel engine
>Tecnam is considering this engine, and it looks very interesting – it is lightweight and runs on diesel. The power output is similar to Rotax 912 and for the turbocharged version (125 hp) even better than any Rotax can do:
Interesting diesel engine
Tecnam is considering this engine, and it looks very interesting – it is lightweight and runs on diesel. The power output is similar to Rotax 912 and for the turbocharged version (125 hp) even better than any Rotax can do:
The vmax equation
Here is the equation for calculating the estimated maximum speed of the aircraft concept:
The vmax equation
Here is the equation for calculating the estimated maximum speed of the aircraft concept:
>The quest for e
>Estimating e seems to not be so trivial and causes lots of thinking – it does not seem to be directly applicable by the book:
Daniel Raymer says in his book that e (Oswald’s efficiency factor) is normally between 0.7 and 0.85 (the e that is below 1.0 comes from the deviation from the perfect elliptic lift distribution). Jon Anderson Jr. says on his book Aircraft Performance & Design that on general aviation aircraft, the e is normally 0.6. And in one example aircraft design in the book Anderson then goes and uses e that is 0.9. It has quite large impact on the estimation results, so it would be better to estimate it right.
Then there are multiple equations for estimating e, in Raymer’s and Anderson’s books. All produce different results, and as a result, the K will be different. And the K has effect on L/Dmax. Interesting enough – the L/Dmax, if the e is estimated with any of the equations provided or assumed as 0.6 as Anderson recommends, the Diamond DA42 Twin Star should have L/D ratio around 12 instead of 18 it in reality has. It has been said that these estimation equations apply only to “normal” aspect ratios. It would be interesting to know what is “normal” aspect ratio – DA42 has AR=12 and the LH10 has AR=14. Maybe that is “higher than normal” then and maybe I have had the privilege to fly “not so normal airplane” when flying the Twin Star. Normal or abnormal, it is an excellent aircraft which is very much fun to fly.
So if I am estimating the L/Dmax of aircraft that has AR=14, and has tapered wing, it seems that quite high e value needs to be picked up. The estimation equation is a heavy generalization though, it does not take into account that on which CL the low drag laminar bucked is (it rather seems that the equations assume turbulent flow).
The quest for e
Estimating e seems to not be so trivial and causes lots of thinking – it does not seem to be directly applicable by the book:
Daniel Raymer says in his book that e (Oswald’s efficiency factor) is normally between 0.7 and 0.85 (the e that is below 1.0 comes from the deviation from the perfect elliptic lift distribution). Jon Anderson Jr. says on his book Aircraft Performance & Design that on general aviation aircraft, the e is normally 0.6. And in one example aircraft design in the book Anderson then goes and uses e that is 0.9. It has quite large impact on the estimation results, so it would be better to estimate it right.
Then there are multiple equations for estimating e, in Raymer’s and Anderson’s books. All produce different results, and as a result, the K will be different. And the K has effect on L/Dmax. Interesting enough – the L/Dmax, if the e is estimated with any of the equations provided or assumed as 0.6 as Anderson recommends, the Diamond DA42 Twin Star should have L/D ratio around 12 instead of 18 it in reality has. It has been said that these estimation equations apply only to “normal” aspect ratios. It would be interesting to know what is “normal” aspect ratio – DA42 has AR=12 and the LH10 has AR=14. Maybe that is “higher than normal” then and maybe I have had the privilege to fly “not so normal airplane” when flying the Twin Star. Normal or abnormal, it is an excellent aircraft which is very much fun to fly.
So if I am estimating the L/Dmax of aircraft that has AR=14, and has tapered wing, it seems that quite high e value needs to be picked up. The estimation equation is a heavy generalization though, it does not take into account that on which CL the low drag laminar bucked is (it rather seems that the equations assume turbulent flow).
Information
Change this sentence and title from admin Theme option page.
Archives
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- August 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- December 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- June 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- December 2007
Categories
- 1/3 scale
- 100mpg
- 3.33
- 3d
- 5-tier program
- 80 hp
- 912ULS
- aerodynamics
- aiaa
- air taxi
- air travel
- aircraft
- aircraft concept
- aircraft configurations
- aircraft design
- aircraft engine
- aircraft maintenance
- aircraft prototype
- aircraft review
- aircraft specs
- aircraft structure
- aircraft video
- airfoil
- airfoil database
- airfoil design
- airfoil for download
- airfoil simulation
- airframe to gross weight ratio
- airspeed
- airventure
- akademy
- althaus
- amphibian
- analysis
- api
- apple
- ar-drone
- article
- arvostelu
- atec zephyr 2000
- atlantic crossing
- auto-conversions
- automotive grade
- aviva stadium
- axiom
- balloon
- battery techology
- beta-testing
- blue
- body
- book collection
- books
- boundary layer suction
- brushless DC
- budget
- burt rutan
- bwb
- C172
- cad
- canard
- carbon nanotube
- carbon rods
- catdroid
- center line thrust
- checkout
- Cirrus
- cl
- climb rate
- Clmax
- column
- combined
- comparative aircraft efficiency
- comparison chart
- composite
- concept description
- concept illustration
- conceptual design
- configuration layout
- connection parts
- cool software
- cool stuff
- copyleft
- course
- da40
- DA40D
- design
- designfoil
- diamond
- diesel
- double slotted flap
- download
- drag reduction
- dreesecode
- dublin
- ducted fan
- dyn-aero
- dynaero
- dynamics
- e
- eaa
- ebook
- educational material
- efficiency
- eggenfellner
- electric flight
- empty weight
- engine pod
- ensikokemukset
- epoxy
- equation
- experiment
- external link
- FAA
- fabrication
- fb
- fix
- flap
- flap actuation mechanism
- flash earth
- fluid dynamics
- flying
- flying adventure
- flying car
- flying wing
- focus
- fowler flap
- FPV
- free
- free music
- full song
- fuselage
- fuselage drag
- future
- future concepts
- future of general aviation
- fx63-137
- GA aircraft
- garage band
- gforge
- glide speed
- goldschmied
- good article
- gross weight
- HALE
- hands on
- HBA
- help
- heureka
- high altitude
- high aspect ratio
- high L/D
- high performance
- historical data
- hks 700
- honda jet
- hosting
- howto
- hybrid aircraft
- hybrid turbo compounding
- hybtonite
- idea
- illustration
- impossible airfoil
- initial version
- installation
- interesting
- interesting concept
- introduction
- invention
- ireland
- iRhino
- iteration
- jet
- kate alhola
- keyboard
- L/D ratio
- laminar flow
- learning
- length/diameter
- lentokone
- lifepo cells
- limit altitude
- link
- link list
- linkki
- linux
- live
- live performance
- loft
- logic studio
- low Cm
- low drag section
- low pitching moment
- low Re
- LSA
- luento
- mac
- maemo
- maemo 5
- maemo nokia n900 maemo 5
- maemo summit
- maesum
- maesum opening video
- maesum opening video music soundtrack
- magnetosarecrap
- manufacturing
- mcr
- meegoband
- meegoconf
- meegosong
- microlight
- misc
- misc tech papers
- mit
- mix ratio
- motor controllers
- mov to png
- movie
- mp3
- mplayer
- music
- music video
- N900
- NACA 65
- nasa
- native applications
- new kind of concept
- new mix
- new song
- NLF
- NLF vs. turbulent
- NLF1015
- NLF115
- NLF215F
- NLF414F
- nokia n900
- non-pressurized
- nord modular
- nurbs modeling
- old concepts
- open courseware
- open source
- open source airplane
- osh11
- oshkosh
- Oswald's efficiency factor
- p2006t
- painting
- parallel hybrid
- patent
- pav
- photos
- PIK
- pipistrel
- plotting fuselage coordinates
- power loading
- powered plane
- powerplant
- ppdgemini
- preaching
- pressure thrust
- production aircraft
- program
- project
- project planning
- propeller
- propeller efficiency
- proteus
- PSRU
- push-pull
- pushing the limits
- qflr5
- QFLR5 MacOSX
- QFLR5 tutorial
- qml
- qt
- random thoughts
- range calculator
- rant
- raptor
- RC aircraft
- recommended reading
- reference library
- review
- reynolds
- reynolds number
- rhino
- ring tone
- rob papen
- roncz
- Rotax modification
- rutan
- sailplane
- satellite imagery
- savier
- scaled composites
- scratchbox
- screenshot
- selig
- series hybrid
- SHM-1
- shoe-string
- simulation
- simulator review
- skyparty
- slipstream
- sms
- software
- software download
- song preview
- soundtrack
- spaceshiptwo
- speed
- spreadsheet
- status update
- structural engineering
- studio gear
- summer party
- svn repo
- symphonic
- tandem wing
- tech paper
- tecnam
- test flying
- test song
- theory
- thesis
- thinking
- three-motor
- tier-1
- tier-2
- tier-3
- tier-4
- tier-5
- TIG-welding
- tkk
- today's concepts
- top speed
- toyota
- tpsession
- turbo
- turbulence
- turbulent flow
- tutorial
- twin
- twin star
- type certificated
- uav
- ubuntu
- UDF
- ultralight
- Uncategorized
- understanding it
- unducted fan
- unfinished drawing irhino
- unfinished drawingm irhino
- unfinished song
- untested idea
- vari-ez
- vdso
- video
- virus
- vmax
- wake propeller
- web site
- welding
- wget
- why speed modifications are doomed to fail
- wikipedia
- wind tunnel
- wing loading
- wing structure
- wing tip turbine
- wireless video
- wishfulthinking
- x-plane
- X-plane model
- XFLR5
- xfoil
- zdesigner
Top Posts
- How to revolutionize aviation industry
- How to parse a plist that has multiple dictionary items
- Thoughts: The secret of the commonly overlooked and underfunded cure for cancer
- (Wing) mold making for rapid prototyping
- Propeller placement article (external link)
- Basics of Mac OS X Package management
- High Altitude UAV Launch for Microsatellite Launcher Rocket
- Pipistrel Panthera videos
- John McGinnis' Synergy Aircraft got funded in Kickstarter
- North Atlantic Adventure Photo Gallery
Flickr Photos
Blog Stats
- 121,370 hits
Planet Karoliina - Karoliina Salminen's Weblogs 